The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-06-23
MR. CURTIS AND THE SOUTHERN QUESTION

| MR.. CURTIS AND THE SOUTHERN QUESTION.
The mugwumps can always be depended on
to bring up the rear of Democratic process
sion. Accordingly, Mr.. George William Cur
It's, in Harpers Weekly, adds his voice little
late to the Democratic chorus of criticism
and abuse of Senator Sherman's Springfield
speech. The part of the speech that seemed
to hurt most was that relating to the polit-
ical status of the South and the denial of the
this point, after criticsing Mr.. Sherman's
utterances, Mr.. Curtis says:
"What is the Southern question? It is
essentially one of the gravest and most vital
that can concern any community, for it is
substantially the question whether where the
colored vote is largely in the majority, and is
cast all together, the community shall be
placed under the government of its most
ignorant class, recently emancipated from a
dehumanizing slavery, and led by unscrupu-
lous chiefs. The pitiless cruelty of slavery
not good school for the exercise of
political supremacy in an otherwise highly
civilized community, and the situation in
some parts of the Southern States is one
which, could it be reproduced in the Northern
States, would not be tolerated. Relief would
be sought and found under law or over law
and that Is what is done in such commune
ties in the Southern States. There is plainly
a deprivation of rights conferred by law
But would any humane and intelligent Re-
publican say that the power of the United
States should be employed to compel submis-
sion to an endless rule like that of Moses in
South CarolinaW
This is a mild, mugwumpan way of put
ting it. AS a matter of fact the colored
voters of the South are absolutely denied the
rights to which they entitled under the
Constitution and laws and there is no such
thing as fair election i'll any Southern State.
But even Mr.. Curtis's mild way of putting it
admits the whole case In many congressional
districts and in some entire States of the
South the colored voters are majority. Mr..
Curtis says the question is whether this ma
iority shall rule. His statement that the
colored people are s'the most ignorant class,
recently emancipated from a dehumanizing
slavery" is apart from the case. That might
have been good argument against giving
good argument for denying them a right con-
ferred by law. The subject was considered in
all its aspects before the adoption of the
fifteenth amendment and it was decided by
the people that, ignorant as they were, and
recently emancipated from a dehumanizing
slavery" colored men should vote, and this
right was conferred on them In the most
solemn manner. To deny it now, or to JUS
tify it's denial on the ground of their
ignorance or on any other ground, is a
gross violation of good faith as well as of law
Mr.. Curtis says if a similar condition of
things existed in any Northern State sit
would not be tolerated-relief would be sought
and found onder law or over law" as is done
in some parts of the South. That is danger
Gus doctrine. The idea that because major
ity of the voters in any community or State
are 'its most ignorant class" therefore the
rule of the majority should not be tolerated,
but should be prevented either "under law or
over law" is contrary to the fundamental
idea of popular government. 1t is, of course,
greatly to be regretted that ignorance should
prevail anywhere, and especially so that ma
jority of the voters in any community should
belong to cts most ignorant Glass;" but the
principle of universal suffrage contemplates
that very possibility and is supposed
to be able to meet it. If the
ignorance argument is good to justify
depriving the colored people of the right of
voting it is good against the principle of uni
versal suffrage, and we must go back and re-
peal the fifteenth amendment. There is no
half way ground. Universal suffrage is either
right or wrong. If right it must include ig
norant blacks we'll ignorant whites, and
in communities where they in majority
as well those where they in minority.
But Mr. Curtis admits the whole case when
he says there is plainly deprivation of |
rights conferred by law" So says Mr. Sher |
man, and therefore there is wrong to be |
righted. If there is "a deprivation of rights |
conferred by law" all the sophistry in the |